IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 16 September 2013 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB91B11E812A for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 08:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aMcRDPWW3dxH for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 08:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C54111E82A4 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 08:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769A62016F; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:24:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 41F4763B18; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:15:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F0F636C7; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:15:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <fb5b2ee3e24c5453c233a50908edad24@xs4all.nl>
References: <CE58AC02.23779%d.sturek@att.net> <fb5b2ee3e24c5453c233a50908edad24@xs4all.nl>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:15:48 -0400
Message-ID: <12193.1379344548@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:16:10 -0000

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
    >> various settings for IMIN, IMAX and k. A process similar to this (with
    >> knowledge of the topology and messaging profile) is needed for tuning
    >> these values in a real deployment setting.

    peter> After looking for an appropriate setting for Imin, Imax and k, I
    peter> slowly learnt that these settings depend on the topology of the
    peter> network, the load of the network, the setting of the MAC, and
    peter> eventual real-time requirements (e.g. there is a deadline), and
    peter> the value of that deadline.  The setting of k for example is
    peter> related to the number of MPL repeaters that receive a new message
    peter> and start to resend it, possibly interfering with each other and
    peter> probably incrementing the c value of the next hop, where the
    peter> maximum value of c is related to the Imin value.  Sending a packet
    peter> takes as little as 3 ms, but when the MAC stores three packets and
    peter> the they all back-off a maximum number of times, delays of a few
    peter> hundred milliseconds to seconds become possible.  When there is
    peter> buffer space for packets before and in the MAC, the Imin value can
    peter> be chosen as low as 1 ms, the resend of packets is then completely
    peter> determined by the load on the network.

This is an excellent template discussion... can I put it into the MPL
parameter part of the RPL applicability template?

Do you think you could rephrase this in the form of questions to be
answered?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email